51 replies to this topic

[SkyTails]

This is my current PC spec, guys:
Graphics:Intel GMA
CPU:Centrino Duo (1.6 ghz)
2.5 GB of RAM

[House]

Just going to throw my opinion in on this, being that I work with computers for my living. . .

(Might be best to start at the bottom of this post and read up, because I'm too lazy to re-organize everything )

SkyTails, on 03 May 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

That's cheap for such a graphic card

Yes, it is extremely.

SkyTails, on 03 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

This is my current PC spec, guys:
Graphics:Intel GMA
CPU:Centrino Duo (1.6 ghz)
2.5 GB of RAM

Going to have to say, that is worse than the original build.

SkyTails, on 03 May 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

450 is kinda expensive for me

Ok

Greatest advice that is yet to be given in this thread: Save until you can buy what you want to fit your needs.

LamboGTR, on 03 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700
2 GB(1x1) DDR2 Ram
Asus GTS450

Eh, you -might- get to High settings with that.

ZTR, on 03 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Then I think you should go with Phenom

Assuming that is a quad-core proc. then yes, most definitely. Also quite possible to get on max settings with that. (Old rig was a phenom x2, with a 1GB Radeon 4870, 12 GB DDR2 800)

SkyTails, on 03 May 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Well, I do make some music in FL Studio 10...

Max at 60fps? Whoa. what's your PC spec?

Which PC, my old one, or the one I am building?

ZTR, on 03 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Depends on what you are gonna use the PC for..

If its just games then i3 is the way to go

However if you multitask and do many things at once the 4 cores of Phenom are better than i3's 2 cores

Cores do not specifically involve multitasking in and of themselves.
More precisely, multitasking abilities are a function of how the program is written. Which isn't too big of an issue today, however there are still certain instances of a few programs that can only be run if and only if it is being dedicated as the only program running.

Also, for the record, I would be half-tempted to say that the i3 and Phenom might be on a more equal playing ground than many would be willing to admit. Just speaking from experience here.

Watcher, on 02 May 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

dell.com 400 bucks can get you a PC with an i3

They say if you don't have anything good to say, don't say it at all. Which in this case, I am going to do that. *cough*Dell sucks*cough Must be the air in here...

EddieLTU, on 02 May 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

i sugest buying bigger resolution monitor (atleast 1280x1024 or a wider one like 1280x760)

A higher resolution monitor really won't help the situation here.

FrozenStar, on 02 May 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I'm not a computer expert, but I'm sure you can find a reasonably priced i3 within your budget, with 4 gb ram and a good videocard that should run it smoothly on max.

Quite possible, yes.

ZTR, on 02 May 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

$400 for the whole comp right?

For that budget I would suggest a Quad Core AMD Cpu (Phenom or Athlon)
4 GB DDR3 ram
GPU:5670 HD 1 GB GDDR5 (If its available) if not then 6670 HD GDDR5 one
MotherBoard: dunno lol Any AM3 or AM2+ MB

(For more specificness on the parts and price ask Life as he lives in Malaysia and thus knows the prices of the components lol )

I would go with an ASUS or Gigabyte motherboard if possible. If those are not an option, I would go with MSI as the third choice.
Definitely Phenom over Athlon, better performance in my experience.

ZTR, on 02 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

^What he said

Also as he said the FPS depends on the resolution of your monitor

FPS doesn't depend on the resolution of the monitor. FPS is purely dictated by the internal components of the PC in question. Monitor's are concerned with resolution (higher #'s = better), refresh rate (lower number = better), and contrast ratio(higher ratio = better). However, with -most- modern monitors these days, it only boils down to the screen resolution (and refresh rate, if you're a junkie like me) which does not have an impact on FPS.

SkyTails, on 02 May 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Not going for 1080p that's for sure So, what processor should I get? (No need to be expensive ) (It's pretty much building a computer, only that, I'm not building it, the guys at the PC shops does)

Second bit of useful advice: Build the PC yourself. Invaluable learning experience. (Or see if you can work out a deal to watch/learn from whomever is building it.)





In conclusion: Most of what is stated here, I agree with. Anything that I have disagreed with I have brought out above. If anyone wants any clarification and/or has questions, just post.

[LamboGTR]

Lol House and his massive replies.

Sky, how much fps you get on low atm?

[pepo930]

My old PC could run World at High at 40-60fps (and previously on MAX before EA decided to f*ck it up 30-50 fps). Here's the specs:
CPU: Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200 @2.5 (OC to 3.6)
RAM: 4GB DDR2
GPU: GeForce 9600GT 512mb
MB: ASUS P5B Deluxe

This is around 250-300$. You can change the CPU to Core2Quad (or core2duo if you dont have money) and the GPU to some Nvidia 200 series.



And also...
1. I3 2100 > AMD Phenom II X4. (Never chose AMD CPUs over Intel CPUs. Intel performs better for the same price)
2. Make sure your PC has 4GB RAM at all costs. Any modern game runs best at 4GB RAM. Less will slow down your PC, more is a waste.
3. FL Studio doesn't require a lot of resources, so go with the I3 2100



If you want to check out how different CPUs and GPUs perform, check these charts:
CPU Benchmarks

GPU Benchmarks

Edited by pepo930, 04 May 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[ZTR]

pepo930, on 04 May 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

1. I3 2100 > AMD Phenom II X4. (Never chose AMD CPUs over Intel CPUs. Intel performs better for the same price)

Not really...

AMD owns when it comes to best bang for buck compared to Intel

The 955 BE is a 3.2 GHz Quad Core CPU with an Unlocked Multiplier meaning easy OC unlike the i3....

[pepo930]

ZTR, on 04 May 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Not really...
AMD owns when it comes to best bang for buck compared to Intel
The 955 BE is a 3.2 GHz Quad Core CPU with an Unlocked Multiplier meaning easy OC unlike the i3....

OC needs better cooling. I doubt that he'll overclock (if he knows what this even means).
The other problem is that many games and applications are not optimized for multi-core CPUs, so they run better on 1 or 2 cores.

Edited by pepo930, 04 May 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[ZTR]

pepo930, on 04 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

OC needs better cooling. I doubt that he'll overclock (if he knows what this even means).
The other problem is that many games and applications are not optimized for multi-core CPUs, so they run better on 1 or 2 cores.

955 BE comes with a High end heat sink by default (with heat pipes)



And yeah I understand that he wont know what OC is but overall if you go too see a AMD platform is cheaper compared to an Intel one

[pepo930]

ZTR, on 04 May 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

955 BE comes with a High end heat sink by default (with heat pipes)

And yeah I understand that he wont know what OC is but overall if you go too see a AMD platform is cheaper compared to an Intel one

I didn't know it had a good cooler. Won't it be better to get FX (Bulldozer) CPU? FX-4100 or even better -FX-6100

[ZTR]

pepo930, on 04 May 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I didn't know it had a good cooler. Won't it be better to get FX (Bulldozer) CPU? FX-4100 or even better -FX-6100

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt FX-6100 more costlier compared to 955 BE?

[pepo930]

ZTR, on 04 May 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt FX-6100 more costlier compared to 955 BE?

It is, but not a lot. Around 30$ but it's faster.

[SkyTails]

pepo930, on 04 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

OC needs better cooling. I doubt that he'll overclock (if he knows what this even means).
The other problem is that many games and applications are not optimized for multi-core CPUs, so they run better on 1 or 2 cores.

I know OverClocking Maybe I won't...Maybe I will *laughs evily*

LamboGTR, on 04 May 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Lol House and his massive replies.

Sky, how much fps you get on low atm?

Well (don't laugh or I'll cry ) on low (1280 x 720) : 20 fps average/37 fps highest/3 fps lowest/Turnpike:13 fps (I guess)

pepo930, on 04 May 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

My old PC could run World at High at 40-60fps (and previously on MAX before EA decided to f*ck it up 30-50 fps). Here's the specs:
CPU: Intel Pentium Dual Core E5200 @2.5 (OC to 3.6)
RAM: 4GB DDR2
GPU: GeForce 9600GT 512mb
MB: ASUS P5B Deluxe

This is around 250-300$. You can change the CPU to Core2Quad (or core2duo if you dont have money) and the GPU to some Nvidia 200 series.



And also...
1. I3 2100 > AMD Phenom II X4. (Never chose AMD CPUs over Intel CPUs. Intel performs better for the same price)
2. Make sure your PC has 4GB RAM at all costs. Any modern game runs best at 4GB RAM. Less will slow down your PC, more is a waste.
3. FL Studio doesn't require a lot of resources, so go with the I3 2100



If you want to check out how different CPUs and GPUs perform, check these charts:
CPU Benchmarks

GPU Benchmarks

250-300? That's kinda cheap

[House]

For the record, most programs today are being written to support multiple cores.

[Nexu]

House, on 04 May 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

For the record, most programs today are being written to support multiple cores.

The correct terminology would be "multi-threading". That covers more than just multiple cores; this includes SMP system and such as Intel HTT.

[SkyTails]

My dad just bought me a new PC Going to pick it up tomorrow So guys, can this setup play NFS:W On High? (or max?) :
Athlon II X2 250 (3.0 GHz)
Radeon HD 6670 (1Gb DDR5)
4GB RAM DDR3

[LamboGTR]

SkyTails, on 06 May 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

My dad just bought me a new PC Going to pick it up tomorrow So guys, can this setup play NFS:W On High? (or max?) :
Athlon II X2 250 (3.0 GHz)
Radeon HD 6670 (1Gb DDR5)
4GB RAM DDR3

Well to put it simple.

Cpu is slightly better than mine.
Gpu is a bit weaker.
Ram is a whole lot better!

I think you good.

Note: I get 35 - 50 fps on max. You should be able to do 40 fps on max easily.

[SkyTails]

LamboGTR, on 06 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well to put it simple.

Cpu is slightly better than mine.
Gpu is a bit weaker.
Ram is a whole lot better!

I think you good.

Note: I get 35 - 50 fps on max. You should be able to do 40 fps on max easily.

Yay!

[pepo930]

CPU is a bottleneck if you decide to play any new game.
World will run fine but a whole new system only for it is a waste.

But that's only my opinion.

[ZTR]

SkyTails, on 06 May 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

My dad just bought me a new PC Going to pick it up tomorrow So guys, can this setup play NFS:W On High? (or max?) :
Athlon II X2 250 (3.0 GHz)
Radeon HD 6670 (1Gb DDR5)
4GB RAM DDR3

One word?

YES!
As the CPU may be dual core but the GPU is same as mine and I can play World at Ultra @40 FPS

[LamboGTR]

pepo930, on 06 May 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

CPU is a bottleneck if you decide to play any new game.
World will run fine but a whole new system only for it is a waste.

But that's only my opinion.

For some people (Like me) World is everything.

[SkyTails]

ZTR, on 06 May 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

One word?

YES!
As the CPU may be dual core but the GPU is same as mine and I can play World at Ultra @40 FPS

What's your CPU?